Critically evaluate the ethical considerations within viral advertising.

Introduction Traditionally advertising itself and its effects on society have been seen by some to be morally damaging (Lasch 1978 cited in Hackley 1999). Consider viral advertising, named for its similarity to the spread of disease, and you would be forgiven for thinking that ethics and viral advertising are mutually exclusive concepts. However, this would be over simplifying the many and varied issues in both ethics and viral marketing. The objective of this study is to critically evaluate the ethical considerations within viral advertising. This is done in several parts; firstly a brief analysis of exactly what is meant by the term viral advertising; then selection of an appropriate ethical framework; identification of ethical issues within viral advertising; applying this ethical framework to the identified problems and lastly recommendations to address identified ethical issues. Viral Advertising: A Definition The term viral advertising is a type of advertisement that encourages individuals to pass on an advertising message to others, therefore creating the potential for exponential growth in the number of people who see the message. Laudon and Traver (2010) state that its the online version of word-of-mouth advertising, which spreads even faster than in the real world. Originally e-mail was the sole method of dissemination of viral advertising. However blogs, SMS messages and social networking sites are playing an increasingly important role as a method of passing on viral advertisements (Goldfarb and Tucker, 2011). Selection of Ethical Framework There are many different ethical arguments that can be used to attempt to justify and specify moral rules and principles. The prevailing trend in the field of business ethics seems to be the building of a variety of perspectives, as opposed to identifying a common basis of theory (Brady and Dunn, 1995). As such, there is no one way to evaluate the ethical considerations within viral marketing. In this paper, the ethical doctrine that will be used is utilitarianism. This is because it is a major contributor to the study of ethics and as a traditional method contrasts well with the newly emerging world of viral advertising. Utilitarianism is an approach to ethics that focuses on the consequences that result from actions (Weisberg et al., 2004). It looks at actions that create the most good or do the least harm, or, alternatively, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. Therefore any study of the ethical consequences of viral advertising must study the consequences of the viral advertisements themselves.

Identification of Ethical Issues There are three major ethical dilemmas identified in this paper when studying viral advertising; these are intrusion, inappropriate content and deception. These are also known as higher values. It is important to note that each of these identified considerations is inter-related and therefore their study is further complicated (Laudon and Traver, 2010). Some issues relate more to some viral advertisements than others. The stakeholders identified in the ethical situations are the customers, the company and society as a whole. Intrusion Intrusion is possibly the most obvious ethical consideration when studying viral advertisements. The public have expressed outrage over perceived intrusions on numerous occasions and seem especially concerned about online privacy (Fox et al., 2000). Weisberg et al. (2004) ask the question Should consumers be allowed to control when, where and how they are marketed to? By their nature, viral advertisements are passed on by consumers within their own networks of friends. Thus, the recipient may not initially be aware that they are receiving advertisement material even if expressly identified within the content. Facebook and other similar social networking sites are used to pass on viral advertisements (Turow et al., 2009). Facebook users utilise the site primarily to connect with friends not to be exposed to viral advertisements. One recent viral advertisement passed on through the medium of social networking sites is from Evian and shows rollerblading babies. Inappropriate Content The second ethical consideration to be identified is that of inappropriate content. Smith and Chaffey (2005) state that viral advertising should ideally be a clever idea, a game or a shocking concept that make it compulsory viewing. Often viral advertisements have sex, nudity, and violence that could be deemed inappropriate content in an attempt to increase their stickiness and encourage consumers to pass along viral information (Rosen 2000; Porter and Golan 2006). This reliance on titillation for distribution of viral advertisements means that they are more likely to have content that could be deemed inappropriate. In addition, the lack of regulation in internet based marketing contributes to the prevalence of inappropriate content in viral advertisements. Croft (2005) describes a viral advertisement portraying a suicide bomber detonating a device inside a Volkswagen car and having the car completely absorb the explosion. By their very nature, it is impossible to limit who receives viral advertisements and tailor them to appropriate audiences.

Deception Deception is an identified ethical consideration. Dobelea et al. (2005) cite the example of The Blair Witch Project film viral advertisement campaign. Whether the supposedly fan-generated comments and websites were really from fans or planted by the film company has been debated. Whilst many viral advertisements are not deliberately deceptive, Sprott (2008) states that firms are becoming more skilled atmelding marketing and non-marketing situations. McDonalds and Coca-Cola have both been condemned for creating a flog a fake consumer blog about their products without stating their involvement (Rowan, 2006). Evaluation of Ethical Issues: Application of Ethical Framework Using the utilitarian approach to evaluate the ethical conflicts relating to viral advertising the potential consequences of the available options will be analysed. It is the authors opinion that only two of the identified ethical issues are legitimate. In order of importance they are: deception and inappropriate content. Intrusion is not deemed by the author to be a valid ethical concern in viral advertising. Using the Utilitarian approach it can be stated that deception causes the most harm and the least good to both consumers and society as a whole. Viral advertisers argue that this deception increases the pass on rate of the advertisement message and therefore the success of the campaign and consequentially the wealth of the company involved. However, the author believes that honesty is a higher order value and is therefore more important. Although no ethical dilemma can be seen as black and white, this issue, to the author, is the most clear cut of those discussed. The ethical issue of inappropriate content is worrying. Looking at the issue within a Utilitarian framework, this is the aspect that will cause most harm to consumers, particularly vulnerable ones such as children. The number of sources that raises this as a concern demonstrates its importance. The difficulty arises in finding agreement on what constitutes inappropriate content (Brown et al., 2010). The sense of intrusion in viral advertising is a feeling that Stone (2010) describes as not only creepy, but o-putting. However, it is the authors view that the benefits of intrusion to all the stakeholders: the consumer, the advertiser and society in general, do outweigh the disadvantages to the consumer. Research suggests that it is this very invasiveness of viral advertisements that makes it so successful (Goldfarb and Tucker, 2011). People are exposed to traditional advertisements whenever they watch television, read a newspaper or walk down the street. Viral advertisements occupy a similar position in the virtual world. Moreover, the fact that viral advertisements are only passed on if the content is deemed valuable by consumers acts as a screening mechanism. Thus, the number of advertisements seen by a consumer is reduced and the quality, as judged by their peers, improved.

Recommendations to Address Identified Ethical Issues With regards to each identified ethical issue there are broadly three options; ban viral advertisements altogether, allow viral advertisements with no restrictions and finally allow viral advertisements with certain limitations imposed on them. The course of action recommended should produce the most good and do the least harm for all stakeholders. This paper suggests that the most appropriate option is to address the ethical issues raised and to allow viral advertisements with certain limitations imposed on them. The limitations to viral advertisements that the author recommends are twofold. Firstly an industry wide agreement not to partake in deceptive practices is recommended. Self-regulation is widely used and accepted in traditional marketing activity (Boddewyn, 1989). Secondly the application of advertising standards relevant to the country of origin to viral advertisements is suggested in an attempt to limit content that could be deemed inappropriate. Conclusion In the final analysis, the evidence indicates that there are various potential ethical issues that should be carefully considered when planning a viral advertisement campaign; intrusion, inappropriate content and deception. Most would agree that it is the advertisers responsibility to eliminate, or at least minimise harm. It is important that the limitations of this paper are recognised. If a different ethical framework were to be used to critically evaluate the issues in viral advertising different results would arise in response to the same problems. In addition, this paper records the authors own interpretations and views, which will not be shared by all readers. Its important to note that both current thinking on ethics in marketing and the nature of viral advertising will change and develop in the future. That is what makes regular evaluation of ethical considerations within viral marketing both valuable and stimulating. Bibliography Boddewyn, J.J 1989. Advertising self regulation: true purpose and limits. Journal of Advertising, 18 (2), pp19-27 Brady, F.N and Dunn, C.P. 1995. Business meta-ethics: an analysis of two theories. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3). Brown, M.R., Roop, K., Bhadury R.K. and Pope, N. 2010. The impact of comedic violence on viral advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising. 39 (1). pp49-66.

Croft, M. 2005. Struggling to Keep the Viral Bug under Control. Marketing Week, 28 (23). Dobelea, A. Tolemanb, D. and Beverland, M. 2005. Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons 48 (2), pp143-149. Fox, S., Lke, R., Horrican, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T. and Carter, C. 2000. Trust and privacy online; why Americans want to rewrite the rules. The Pew Internet & American Life Project. [online]. Available from : http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2000/Trust-and-Privacy-Online/Summary.aspx [cited 08 June 2011]. Goldfarb, A. and Tucker, C. E. 2011. Privacy regulation and online advertising. Management Science 57 (1), pp5771. Hackley, C. 1999. The meanings of ethics in and of advertising. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8 (1), pp37-42. Laudon, K.C and Traver, C.G. 2010. E-Commerce 2010 Business, Technology, Society. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Porter, L and Golan, G.L. (2006) From subservient chickens to brawny men: a comparison of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6 (2), pp.26-33. Rosen, E. 2000. The Anatomy of Buzz. New York: Random House. Rowan, D. 2006. The Next Big Thing: Flogs. The Times, 11th November. Smith, P.E. and Chaffrey, D. 2005. E-Marketing Excellence, at the Heart of EBusiness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth and Heinemann Elsevier. Stone, B. 2010. Ads Posted on Facebook Strike Some as O-Key. New York Times, 3rd March. [online]. Available from : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/technology/04facebook.html [cited 08 June 2011]. Turow, J., King, J, Hoofnagle, C.J., Bleakley, A and Hennessy, M. 2009. Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It. Berkeley: Mimeo. Weisberg, A., Pfleiger, A and Friedberg, J. 2004. Undercover agency, the ethics of stealth marketing. Leeds: Ethical Publishing.